Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2022] decided on 09.5.2022. It is settled legal proposition that

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                        
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
Misc. Appeal Diary No. 260 of 2024
           (Arising out of O.A. 388 of 2022 in DRT, Guwahati)
Order No. 02
10.5.2024 
M/s. Suman Hardware  Stores & 
Another    
           … Appellants
           -Vs- 
HDFC Bank Limited        
   
       …  Respondents
Mr. 
Rupam 
Sarma, 
Learned
Counsel for the Appellant  
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
For Admission
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellants and perused the 
record. 
                   
2.
Instant Misc. Appeal has arisen against order dated 19.9.2023
whereby I.A. 263 of 2023 was dismissed by the Learned DRT.
3.
I.A. 263 of 2023 was filed by the Appellants, who are Defendants 
No. 1 and 2 in the O.A. 388 of 2022, with a prayer to recall the order 
dated 10.2.2023 whereby the right of filing the written statement by 
Defendants No. 1 and 2 in the O.A. was closed as they have not filed 
the written statement within 30 days and 15 days more, i.e. total 45 
days.  I.A. 263 of 2023 was dismissed by the Learned DRT holding 
that the period of 45 days, as contemplated under the Act, could not
be extended and accordingly, dismissed the application I.A. 263 of 
2023.
4.
Learned Counsel for Appellants would submit that the Appellants 
could not file the written statement before the Learned DRT. Time was 
sought for filing the written statement on medical ground which was 
repelled by the Learned DRT. Order is not in accordance with law.
5.
As far as the period of filing of written statement in the O.A. 
proceedings is concerned, Defendants should file the written statement 

2
within a period of 30 days which could be extended by the Learned 
DRT for 15 days more but this period of 45 days cannot be extended
by the DRT.
6.
Before proceeding to decide the instant case 1 find it appropriate 
to reproduce the provision of Section 19 (5) (i) of the Act as under :
"19(5) (i) the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from 
the date of service of summons, present a written statement of 
his defence including claim for set-off under sub-section (6) or a 
counter-claim under sub-section (8), if any, and such written 
statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true 
copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the 
defendant in his defence: Provided that where the defendant 
fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty 
days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in 
special circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the said
period by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file 
the written statement of his defence:"
7. 
Hence, the question for determination is as to whether the 
provision of section 19 (5) (i) of the Act is mandatory or directory in 
nature?
8. 
It was held in  Kailash -Vs-  Nanhku & Others [(2005) 4 SCC 
480]  and Bharat Kalra -vs- Raj Kishan Chabra [(Civil Appeal No. 
63 of 2022] decided on 09.5.2022.  It is settled legal proposition that 
when any provision of the Act does not state any exception to a 
particular point of law, then other provision akin to the relevant 
provision of law is important. This view is fortified by the view taken 
by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crest Steel & Power 
Private Limited & Others -vs- Punjab National Bank & Others 
[2019 (1) MPLJ 703] which was duly approved by the Hon'ble Apex 
Court by dismissing the SLP.
9.
In Para 7 of the judgment in M/s Crest Steel (supra) following 
observation made by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court :
“On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank referred to 
Three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 
New India Assurance Company Limited -Vs-  Hilli Multipurpose 
Cold Storage Private Limited, (2015) 16 SCC 22 (for short 
Hilli I’), wherein the judgment in Kallash's case (supra) was

3
found to be not correct view as the earlier Three Judges Ben

…